The Clearview Energy lawsuit against Tammi Stroud is a 2018 Dallas County case in which the Dallas-based retail electric provider accused its former employee of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to defraud, and violating a non-compete agreement tied to unauthorized vendor contracts with a Georgia marketing firm. Stroud tried to have the case thrown out under Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute. A Texas appeals court rejected that attempt on May 1, 2019, and sent the claims back to the trial court.1Texas Anti-SLAPP. A Texas Anti-SLAPP Motion To Dismiss Based on a Matter of Public Concern Must Contain Evidence of That Concern
What Clearview Accused Stroud of Doing
Stroud had worked at Clearview Energy from at least 2012. The company suspected as early as 2013 that she was setting up a competing business and paid her $500 to sign a non-compete agreement.2vLex. Stroud v. Clearview Energy
The dispute that produced the lawsuit centered on Opsolve LLC, a Georgia marketing firm. In 2016, Stroud entered into a marketing agreement with Opsolve purportedly on Clearview’s behalf. CEO Frank McGovern later alleged that she lacked authority to sign the contract, bypassed required internal approvals, and executed two amendments in 2017 that increased payments to Opsolve without any added value to Clearview. In court filings, Clearview described the payments as “kickbacks for sham vendor contracts to which no performance was intended.”2vLex. Stroud v. Clearview Energy
Clearview terminated the Opsolve contract by email on March 7, 2018. On March 26, Stroud met with McGovern to discuss her working conditions and asked to be released from her non-compete. That same day, she sent McGovern an email raising concerns about company management, the delivery of electricity, regulatory compliance, and vendor payments. McGovern accepted her resignation three days later, on March 29, 2018.2vLex. Stroud v. Clearview Energy
On April 18, 2018, Opsolve’s attorneys sent Clearview a demand letter seeking $1,123,697 in damages, fees, and costs for the terminated contract. Nine days later, on April 27, 2018, Clearview sued both Stroud and Opsolve in Dallas County’s 14th Judicial District Court, Cause No. DC-18-05580.3Judy Records. Tammi Stroud v. Clearview Energy The claims against Stroud were breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and breach of the non-compete. Clearview also sued Opsolve for breach of contract, alleging it never performed the promised services.2vLex. Stroud v. Clearview Energy
Why the Anti-SLAPP Motion Failed
Stroud moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows early dismissal of suits that target protected speech, petition, or association. She argued Clearview had sued her in retaliation for her March 26 email, and that the email addressed matters of public concern because it touched on the delivery of electricity and regulatory compliance.1Texas Anti-SLAPP. A Texas Anti-SLAPP Motion To Dismiss Based on a Matter of Public Concern Must Contain Evidence of That Concern
The trial court denied the motion, and Stroud appealed to the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas. On May 1, 2019, the appellate panel affirmed. The court held that Stroud failed at the first step of the TCPA analysis: she did not put sufficient evidence in the record showing that her email, or the issues it raised, specifically concerned matters of “public concern” as the statute defines the term. Without that threshold showing, the court had no basis to treat Clearview’s fraud and breach-of-duty claims as retaliation for protected speech.1Texas Anti-SLAPP. A Texas Anti-SLAPP Motion To Dismiss Based on a Matter of Public Concern Must Contain Evidence of That Concern4Law360. Energy Co.’s Fraud Suit Won’t Be Derailed by Anti-SLAPP Law
Because she did not meet her burden, the TCPA’s mandatory attorney’s fees and sanctions against Clearview were never triggered.2vLex. Stroud v. Clearview Energy
Where the Case Stands
The appellate court’s mandate issued on July 11, 2019, returning the case to the Dallas County trial court so Clearview’s underlying fraud, fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and non-compete claims could proceed.3Judy Records. Tammi Stroud v. Clearview Energy Publicly available records do not show how those claims were ultimately resolved at the trial court level.
A Note on Clearview’s Other Legal Troubles
The Stroud case is an internal corporate dispute and is separate from Clearview Energy’s consumer-facing regulatory matters, including a 2021 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission settlement over slamming and marketing violations5Energy Choice Matters. Clearview Energy Pennsylvania Settlement and a September 2025 $8.4 million consent decree with the Illinois Attorney General that permanently bans the company from selling electricity and gas in Illinois.6Illinois Attorney General. Attorney General Raoul Announces $8.4 Million Settlement With Alternative Retail Electric Supplier Over Deceptive and Unfair Business Practices Those actions involve alleged deceptive sales practices toward customers and are not connected to the fraud allegations against Stroud.